"Yes, “people in a group do, individually, become less likely to help. It’s the volunteer dilemma: ‘If there are 7 billion people who could save the world, why should it be me?’ ” Krueger [Brown psychology professor Joachim Krueger] says. But drill down, and the picture grows more complex. In situations where there’s a clear threat—when someone is trying to extinguish a raging car fire, rather than merely struggling to change a flat tire—the bystander effect actually diminishes. “It’s counterintuitive,” says Krueger. “As the costs of a behavior become higher, you should be less likely to help.” Why that’s not so lies deep in our lizard brains. We know danger when we see it, and when we do, it induces higher levels of arousal and, therefore, more propensity to help. Even more heartening, when the costs of intervention are physical—a punch in the face or being run over by an oncoming train, instead of merely being late for work—“the bystander effect goes away,” Krueger says. And if the perpetrators are still on scene, the bystander effect can turn positive."
—
Innocent Bystanders “Genovese Syndrome” amended. By Claude Brodesser-Akner
Когда вокруг семь миллиардов людей вокруг, естественный вопрос: “А почему именно я должен спасать мир? Вон, как много людей вокруг.” Впрочем, новое исследование показывает, что если есть реальная угроза найдется некто, кто действительно пойдет спасать. Главное, чтобы угроза была реальной и ощутимой. В частности миндалинами ощутимой.
Не могу не передать привет Малкольму Гладуэллу.